- From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:35:07 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Peter Patel-Schneider wrote concerning the issue of "social meaning": >> > > such RDF meanings can always be be proved and explained back to >> > > their roots and those are held responsible for what they assert! >> > > (plus that making information explicit removes it from the context) >> > >> > Huh? How can they be *proved*? What system will do the proving? >> >> well, I should have said *proof checked* as the >> formally sanctioned inference processes in above [*] >> should generate/exchange their proofs > >Take a look at the example in RDF Concepts. The part that makes the >connection is natural language. How are you going to proof check that? Is this refering to the Clown example in 2.4.3.1 of the Nov 8 version of the RDF Concepts document? The initial reference was to something in section 4.5 of the concepts document, but I found no example there at all. -Evan
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 11:35:27 UTC